From experience to expectation: The reverse effect of power on purchasing impulsiveness

Wang, Yanzhi; Yao, Tang; Qiu, Qi

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1094536

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Psychol., 08 March 2023

Sec. Personality and Social Psychology

Volume 14 - 2023 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1094536

This article is part of the Research Topic Research in Social Psychology, Prevention Activities and Mental Health Promotion View all 18 articles

From experience to expectation: The reverse effect of power on purchasing impulsiveness

$\r\nYanzhi Wang*$ Yanzhi Wang^1*

Tang Yao²

Qi Qiu³

¹School of Management, Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin, China
²School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing, China
³College of Business Administration, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing, China

Introduction: Previous literatures have mainly explored the impact of the experience of power on impulsive buying, but have ignored the impacts of the expectations of power. The purpose of this research is to delineates a two-facet portrait of power in the role of affecting purchase impulsiveness by proposing a theoretical extension from the experience of power to the expectations of power.

Methods: Four laboratory experiments were developed that used ANOVA to verify the hypothesis. A moderated mediation path model was established including the experience of power, product attribute, the expectations of power, deservingness, and purchasing impulsiveness as observed variables.

Results: The results revealed that powerless consumers are more likely to impulsively buy hedonic products; while powerful consumers prefer to impulsively buy utilitarian products. However, when focusing on the expectations of power, powerless consumers feel a lower perception of deservingness, which reduces their impulse to buy hedonic products. In contrast, when powerful consumers imagine how powerful people should behave in consumption, they will experience a higher sense of deservingness and increase purchasing impulsiveness for hedonic products. The underlying mechanism is that deservingness plays a mediation role in the three-way interaction impacts of the experience of power, product attribute, and the expectations of power on purchasing impulsiveness.

Conclusion: The current research formulates a new theoretical perspective on the relationship between power and purchasing impulsiveness. An experience-expectation model of power is presented that proposes consumers’ purchasing impulsiveness can be affected both by the experience of power and the expectations of power.

Introduction

Impulse buying is a pervasive and distinctive aspect of consumers’ lifestyles and also a focal point of considerable marketing management activity (Rook, 1987). The data show that it accounts for as much as 62% of traditional supermarket sales and 80% of all sales in certain product categories (Luo, 2005), within the huge e-commerce market, consumers often make spontaneous, unplanned, unreflective, and unthoughtful impulse purchases (Habib and Qayyum, 2018). Reports from Internet Retailer (2019) indicated that Alibaba and Amazon jointly created a huge sales volume of $1.13 billion in 2018 (Li et al., 2021), of which impulse purchases contributed a large portion of sales. Scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds have explored the drivers of impulsive buying (Luo, 2005; Amos et al., 2014; Chen and Ku, 2021; Li et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022), especially the impacts of some psychological characteristic such as ability to regulate emotion (Li et al., 2017), anticipated regret (Li et al., 2021), and susceptibility to influence (Luo, 2005).

As a key psychological factor, it seems that the power takes a leading position in impulsive buying behavior. The notion of power is a critical dimension of the judgments or decisions to be made (Li et al., 2022), having or lacking power has transformative effects on consumers’ information processing and decision-making (Keltner et al., 2003; Rucker and Galinsky, 2008; Rucker et al., 2012; Garbinsky et al., 2014). Scholars consistently document the importance of the experience of power in influencing impulsive buying (e.g., Keltner et al., 2003; Smith and Trope, 2006; Jin and Zhu, 2016), but the studies have not achieved a convergent conclusion. Construal level theory, for example, suggests that power increases psychological distances which enable powerful people to make decisions at high construal level, as a consequence, powerful people are not easy to buy impulsively (Smith and Trope, 2006). Empirical researches on self-control (Jia et al., 2020) and saving behavior (Garbinsky et al., 2014) can provide supports. A second line of research based on the power-approach theory (Keltner et al., 2003) suggests that power activates a general tendency to approach whereas powerlessness activates a general tendency to inhibit. As a result, people having power are more likely to purchase products impulsively, while those lacking power are less likely to be impulsive in consumption behavior (Galinsky et al., 2003). A third effort to understand the experience of power has examined the link between power and the types of products purchased on impulse. Jin and Zhu (2016) proposed that powerful individuals are more likely to buy utilitarian products on impulse, while powerless individuals are more likely to buy hedonic products on impulse. The mechanism is that the fluency of information processing leads consumers to consider that their impulse purchase decisions are correct. This mechanism is not exactly the same as the impulsive purchase phenomenon in which consumers encounter the internal psychological conflict of whether or not to buy. Although impulsive buying often occurs spontaneously, it is not a completely uncontrollable behavior, but the result of the failure of self-control caused by desire over willpower (Hoch and Loewenstein, 1991; Baumeister, 2002).

In sum, previous power literature commonly explores the impact of the experience of power on impulsive buying. However, power is accompanied by both an experience (the internal psychological and physiological tendencies that activate when one has or lacks power) and expectations (schemas and scripts that related to how people in a given position of power behave) (Rucker et al., 2014). The expectations of power are related to social stereotype of power. In fact, individuals often observe how people with or without power should behave in society, and hold a series of schemas and scripts related to power. Under Chinese culture, high power individuals are perceived to be more capable (Wang et al., 2017), power stereotypes play an important role in consumers’ decision-making (Zhang et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2017; Li et al., 2022). A focus on the expectations of power might yield distinct and novel effects on consumer decision-making (Rucker et al., 2014). Despite the importance of this variable, to our knowledge, scholars have rarely explored whether the expectations of power will have a different effect on the purchase impulsiveness compared to the experience of power.

In this research, we build on previous research on the expectations of power (Rucker et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2017) to suggest that reminders of the expectations of power promote a normative evaluation of purchase impulsiveness, which guides consumers’ decision making toward impulsive buying (Rook and Fisher, 1995; Kivetz and Zheng, 2017). Theoretically, we propose an associative mechanism to suggest that high power is associated with greater “I deserve” in the face of hedonic product temptations. This associative account, as we describe subsequently, is consistent with the idea that activating the expectations of power triggers the justification of impulsive buying. When normative evaluation of impulse buying is activated through salient low deservingness, powerless individual is less likely to engage in hedonic impulsive buying. Consequently, focused on the social stereotype of powerless or powerful people, people with low power tend to reduce the impulse desire to buy hedonic product, on the contrary, people with high power will increase their impulsive desire to buy hedonic products.

Our findings add to the literature in several important ways, we are the first to examine the impact of the expectations of power on the impulse to buy hedonic products. Meanwhile, this research proposes a theoretical research framework including the dual perspectives of the experience of power and the expectations of power, which can integrate the existing contradictory research results on the relationship between power and impulse purchase. In addition, we identify the sense of deservingness as a heretofore unexamined process underlying the influence of engaging in the expectations of power on purchase impulsiveness. Taken together, our results suggest that consumers derive the justification of impulse buying of hedonic products when they shift the focus from the experience of power (how I feel) to the expectations of power (how I should behave), their impulse willingness to buy hedonic products is related to the results of normative evaluation.

Literature review and research hypotheses

The experience of power versus the expectations of power

Power refers to the capacity to influence other people, it emerges from control over valuable resources and the ability to administer rewards and punishments (Keltner et al., 2003). Power is often conceived of as a structural variable and as a property of social relationships, can also become a psychological property of the individual (Galinsky et al., 2003). First, power refers to the ability of an individual to be independent or not be affected by others. Second, power is related to long-term social status, economic status, and perception of controlling over others related to one’s position in an organization. “By creating a rank-ordering collection of individuals, power serves as a social tool to organize and structure individuals and groups” (Rucker et al., 2014). Besides, in the temporary perspective, power is a psychological variable which means that people can feel powerless or powerful independent of their structural position (Rucker et al., 2014). For example, recalling a previous episode in which people felt powerless or powerful alters their sense of power. Therefore, the sense of powerless or powerful could be primed by context, role or memory of experienced state of powerless or powerful (Magee and Galinsky, 2008).

A great deal of research has argued that possessing power could produce a variety of effects ranging from perception of price unfairness (Jin et al., 2014), consumer’s feeling of controlling over inanimate objects (Kim and McGill, 2011), preference for small or large objects (Dubois et al., 2012), and consumer’s information processing and status seeking behavior (Rucker et al., 2014). Compared with powerful consumers, consumers who are lack of power may have less sense of control and have negative emotional experiences (Berdahl and Martorana, 2006). Therefore, in order to restore the control and get rid of negative experiences, the compensatory consumer behavior is produced, especially for buying high social-status products (Rucker and Galinsky, 2008; Rucker et al., 2012). On the contrary, an individual with high-power pays more attention to the utility of the product, and emphasis more on the quality and performance of the product rather than the symbolic meaning (Jin and Zhu, 2016). Meanwhile, the power affects consumer’s focus on goals and values. According to the Agentic-Communal Orientation Theory of power, people with high-power have agentic orientations, and they are more self-focused and this leads them to be less charitable (Han et al., 2017), willing to purchase products for themselves (Rucker et al., 2011). However, powerless individuals are more community orientated. Specifically, they pay more attention to others’ needs (Piff et al., 2010), and spend more for others (Rucker et al., 2011). Finally, the power experience has an effect on consumer’s behavioral tendency. According to the “Approach/Inhibition” Theory of power, an increase in power experience will activate individuals’ approach behavior and make them easier to perceive information such as rewards and success; while, a decrease in power experience will activate the inhibition behavior, and it is easier for individuals to perceive more information on threats and failures (Inesi, 2010).

It is worth noting that the possession of power is not accompanied only by the psychological experience. People often observe how the powerful and the powerless behave, they may come to hold a variety of expectations for the roles tied to different levels of power. The expectations of power are defined as the cognitive associations or schemas people have regarding how people behave based on their position of power (Rucker et al., 2014). The psychological experience of power refers to how one feels, and the expectations of power concentrate on how people with different power should behave in their actions. The expectations of power reflect organized knowledge structures and beliefs about how people should behave based on a role, can also guide consumer decision. For example, Rucker et al. (2014) found that powerful people would be more willing to choose status-related products which match their high-power experience when they are expected to be decent. People can behave in a manner consistent with the cognitive associations tied to a particular construct or role because those schemas become more accessible in one’s mind.

Despite the plethora of research that has examined how the psychological experience of power influences consumer behavior. For example, previous research has examined the impact of power on consumer’s goal pursuit (Chen J. et al., 2014), information processing (Smith and Trope, 2006; Chen J. E. et al., 2014), and consumption decision (Rucker et al., 2012; Garbinsky et al., 2014). However, to our best knowledge, the relationship between the expectations of power and impulsive buying remains relatively unexplored. we introduce the notion that power is accompanied by both an experience and expectations. As a consequence, for the same individual, focusing on the experience of power may produce a given set of effects on impulsive buying, whereas focusing on expectations of power may sometimes elicit a different desire to purchase.

The experience of power and purchase impulsiveness

Lacking power is an aversive state and thus individuals are often motivated to reduce a state of powerlessness (Rucker and Galinsky, 2008). Consumers with low-power experience are eager to get rid of this negative psychological feeling in various ways, including compensating consumption (Chen et al., 2017). A focus on one’s internal psychological experience of power produces a focus on what a product will do for an individual (Rucker and Galinsky, 2009), as a result, hedonic products were predicted to be particularly valued by the powerless as a means of elevating a negative feeling. In addition, people with low power have less self-regulatory resources, while selection and self-regulation can consume the internal resources of individuals (Baumeister et al., 1998). Powerless are more dependent on emotions for making decision due to their limited cognitive processing resources (Shiv and Fedorikhin, 1999). When people rely on emotions to make decisions, it is easier for them to purchase hedonic products (Jin and Zhu, 2016). Both limited cognitive ability and negative experience cause people with low power more likely to buy hedonic products on impulse than utilitarian ones.

On the contrary, individuals with high-power experience will have a stronger sense of control because they could control more valuable resources (Berdahl and Martorana, 2006). Hence, they have less psychological demand for compensatory consumption. In terms of the choice of product features, people with a high sense of power pay less attention to the symbolism of the product, but more to the functional value of the product (Magee and Galinsky, 2008). High power leads to a preference for products that provide individuals with the greatest utility (Rucker and Galinsky, 2009). Prior study has confirmed that when focusing on the psychological experience of power, consumers with high power are more likely to have impulsive desire for utilitarian products (Jin and Zhu, 2016). Thus, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1: Consumers with high-power experience have stronger impulsiveness to purchase utilitarian product than hedonic product.

Hypothesis 2: Consumers with low-power experience have stronger impulsiveness to purchase hedonic product than utilitarian product.

The expectations of power and purchase impulsiveness

There are a number of reasons why the expectations of power may weaken powerless individuals’ desires for hedonic products. First, according to the “desire-willpower” theory of impulsive buying (Hoch and Loewenstein, 1991), When consumers have a time-inconsistent preference, they will experience the process of psychological conflict and struggle between purchase desire and willpower. Consumers will evaluate the reasonableness of their impulsive purchase of hedonic products (Rook and Fisher, 1995). In fact, consumers who have the desire to buy may not really make impulsive purchases, and there are no uncontrollable impulses in the world (Rook, 1987), Impulse buying is caused by the failure of self-control, and it is not a completely unthinking and uncontrollable behavior of consumers in essence (Baumeister, 2002).

Second, social stereotypes generally believe that people with low power should be more economical in their daily life because they have less valuable resources, and there is no need to consume unnecessary hedonistic products (Magee and Galinsky, 2008). When focusing on the expectations of power, the schemas and scripts about lacking power become more accessible in powerless peoples’ mind, they will not find a “reasonable” reason to buy hedonic products on impulse. Hedonistic products are mainly characterized by aesthetic and emotional experience, although they can bring immediate satisfaction to consumers (Pang et al., 2014), compared with utilitarian products characterized by instrumentality and functionality, it is difficult for consumers to prove the reasonableness of purchase (Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2012). Consumers will pay attention to hedonistic needs only after the necessary functional needs have been met, unless they can prove that they have the right to indulge (Chitturi et al., 2008). Powerless individuals have less quantity of valuable resources, and limited resources should be used to meet basic functional needs. When they are unable to prove the rationality of choosing pleasure goods, they are naturally unwilling to indulge themselves to consume hedonic products (Levav and McGraw, 2009).

In contrast, when high power individuals think about how powerful people should spend from the perspective of other people in society, they will find that social stereotypes generally believe that people with high power have more valuable resources, so they are more qualified and able to have fun, and should engage in consumer behavior consistent with their high power (Magee and Galinsky, 2008). The activation of schemas and scripts of powerful people leads to a spreading activation of constructs that can nudge high power people’s behavior in a manner consistent with those schemas. Thus, People with a high sense of power will think that it is very reasonable for them to consume hedonic products on impulse. Accordingly, we propose two specific hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: When the expectations of power are activated, consumers with low-power experience will reduce impulsiveness to purchase hedonic product.

Hypothesis 4: When the expectations of power are activated, consumers with high-power experience will increase impulsiveness to purchase hedonic product.

Deservingness

Deservingness inherently refers to a rationale for why someone is worthy of a particular outcome or treatment (Cavanaugh, 2014). As an important source of justification of consumption, deservingness often appears in advertisements. For example, firms often appeal to consumers’ sense of deservingness to encourage their consumption behavior with slogans such as “you deserve to have this good car” (GM), “today, you deserve to have a rest” (McDonald’s), and “you deserve it” (L’Oréal).

Research has proved that deservingness affects people’s indulgent consumption behavior (Xu and Schwarz, 2009). In the consumption research domain, impulsive behavior has been linked with “being bad” and with negative consequences in the areas of personal finance, post-purchase satisfaction, social reactions, and overall self-esteem (Rook and Fisher, 1995). Consumers who have purchase impulsiveness need to conduct a normative evaluation, i.e., judgments about the appropriateness of engaging in impulsive purchasing behavior (Rook and Fisher, 1995). Hedonic products can bring instant gratification compared with utilitarian products, but it is difficult to prove the normalization of hedonic consumption (Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2012). Compared with utilitarian purchase, consumers would provide more convincing proofs of justification for hedonic purchase (Khan and Dhar, 2010). On the contrary, utilitarian products which satisfy basic needs can naturally prove consumer’s justification (Kivetz and Zheng, 2017). Indulging with a reason refers to a rational or justified indulgence that feels like it is earned or deserved (Xu and Schwarz, 2009). For example, Kivetz and Simonson (2002) found that consumers are more likely to choose hedonic returns rather than practical returns if hedonic rewards require more efforts, because these efforts make them believe that they have the right for indulgence. Kivetz and Zheng (2006) found that people who work hard or exceed their tasks are more likely to choose hedonic products as rewards because they have logical reasons for their indulgent consumption. Kivetz and Zheng (2017) found that price promotion provides reasonable proofs for hedonic consumption compared with quantity discounts, and a consumer will think “I have the power to do so.” In contrast, Cavanaugh (2014) found that when people are reminded that they don’t possess a valuable relationship, deservingness would be reduced and thereby constrain their indulgent consumption.

On the basis of existing research, we propose that powerless people who make their impulsive purchase decisions through the observation of other’s behavior have a low sense of deservingness, and they cannot prove the justification of impulsively purchasing hedonic products. On the contrary, when power expectation is activated, the scripts and schemas about how powerful people consume goods increase their attention to hedonic products, and powerful people will feel that they are qualified and capable, that is, they are worth buying hedonistic products, thus providing a reasonable cause for hedonistic consumption. The conceptual diagrams of model are shown in Figure 1. Thus, we suggest the following:

Hypothesis 5: When power expectation is activated, consumers with low-power experience will have lower sense of deservingness, whereas consumers with high-power experience will have higher sense of deservingness.

Hypothesis 6: When power expectation is activated, deservingness plays a mediation role in the impact of power experience on impulsiveness to purchase utilitarian product versus hedonic product.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Conceptual diagrams of model.

Study design

Study 1: The experience of power and purchase impulsiveness

The goal of study 1 was to test the H1 and H2. We manipulated subjects’ power experience and product attributes, and then asked them to response their impulsive purchase intention for utilitarian or hedonic products.

Pretest

First, consistent with prior work (Galinsky et al., 2003), we manipulated power experience consisting of an episodic recall task that asks subjects (under graduation students, N = 54) to recall an event in which either they have power over someone else (high power) or someone else have power over them (low power). The existing study has verified that this method has good reliability and validity (Rucker and Galinsky, 2008). After the manipulation, subjects were asked to report their power experience in a seven-point item “how powerful did you feel when completing the recall task?” (1 = not powerful at all, 7 = very powerful). At the same time, the subjects were asked to answer “to what extent you engaged in the episodic recall task?” (1 = not at all engaged, 7 = very much engaged). The results showed that all subjects could focus on power experience scenario (M = 6.13, SD = 0.65). Meanwhile, subjects in the high-power context reported their feelings were significantly more powerful (M = 5.26, SD = 1.26) than those in the low-power context (M = 3.07, SD = 0.96, F(1, 52) = 51.541, p < 0.001), indicating a successful manipulation of power experience.

Second, we chose portable music player as the stimulus material and manipulated its hedonic and utilitarian attributes (Pang et al., 2014). Here, the “hedonic attribute” refers to the aesthetic, experiential, and enjoyment-related benefits; and “utilitarian attribute” refers to the functional, instrumental, and practical benefits of consumption offerings (Chitturi et al., 2007). Subjects (under graduation students, N = 22) were asked to evaluate four important product attributes of a music player, including two hedonic attributes (appearance: changeable color; sound quality: high quality stereo audio) versus two utilitarian attributes (battery capacity: 20 h endurance; manipulative mode: control by earphone wire). They reported their feelings of each attribute with two seven-point items: “to what extent you think it is the hedonic (utilitarian) attribute of the music player” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) (Chitturi et al., 2007). The results demonstrated that the battery capacity (M_hedonic = 3.09, SD = 0.75 vs. M_utilitarian = 6.41, SD = 0.67, t (21) = 16.461, p < 0.001) as well as manipulative mode (M_hedonic = 3.14, SD = 0.71 vs. M_utilitarian = 6.45, SD = 0.67, t (21) = 21.730, p < 0.001) were more utilitarian, and appearance (M_hedonic = 5.91, SD = 0.68 vs. M_utilitarian = 3.14, SD = 0.94, t (21) = 10.241, p < 0.001) as well as sound quality (M_hedonic = 5.95, SD = 0.72 vs. M_utilitarian = 5.27, SD = 0.87, t (21) = 12.396, p < 0.001) were more hedonic, indicating a successful manipulation of product attribute. Subjects also rated the importance of each attribute with a seven-point item: “to what extent you think this attribute is important for you to decide to buy this music player?” (1 = not important at all, 7 = very important). The results showed that there were no significant differences among four attributes (F(3, 84) = 0.548, p = 0.651).

Design and procedure

A total of 108 undergraduate students (M_age = 20.53, SD = 1.38, 56.82% females) in a university participated in the study for course credit. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (the experience of power: high vs. low) × 2 (product attribute: hedonic vs. utilitarian) between-subjects design. Firstly, we manipulated the experience of power with the same method used in the pretest study. After the manipulation of power, the subjects reported their mood with two seven-point items: “now, I feel sad (or happy)” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Subjects didn’t feel different positive affect [M_high–power = 4.19, M_low–power = 4.28, F(1, 106) = 0.27, p < 0.605, ns] or negative affect [M_high–power = 2.74 vs. M_low–power = 2.65, F(1, 106) = 0.29, p < 0.592, ns] in different power contexts, indicating that the experience of power had no effect on subjects’ mood. The results were consistent with the previous studies (Galinsky et al., 2003; Smith and Trope, 2006).

Then, we adopted the impulsive purchase scenario designed by Rook and Fisher (1995): Someone was going to buy a product, but occasionally met another ideal product. Under the condition of limited funds, how to make a choice in face of temptation could be viewed as the impulsive purchase. Subjects were exposed to the scenario:

A few days ago, you got a part-time job salary of ¥500 ($1 = ¥6.9) which you could control freely. Now, you need to buy a calculator necessary in your mathematics course. At the end of the week, you go to the shopping mall with the money and a credit card to buy the calculator (priced at about ¥100). But when you walk through the mall, you find a portable music player (priced at ¥399) is selling fantastically. You like it very much.

Meanwhile, the manipulations of two different product attributes in different designs were same to the pretest study.

After reading this scenario, in order to assess the purchase impulsiveness, subjects were instructed to select which one of five purchase decision alternatives they would make. These choice alternatives were designed to represent varying levels of purchase impulsiveness. From low to high impulsiveness, these alternatives were: (1) buying the calculator only, (2) wanting the portable music player but not buying it, (3) deciding not to buy the calculator, (4) buying both the calculator and the portable music player with the credit card, and (5) buying these plus a matching earphone with the credit card. This method was used and verified to effectively measure the purchase impulsiveness by many previous studies (e.g., Rook and Fisher, 1995; Luo, 2005). The impulsiveness of each purchase alternative was validated with an independent sample of students (under graduation students, N = 89). They were asked to rate the impulsive of each purchase alternative on a seven-point scale, the results showed that there are significant differences in the scores of impulsiveness of purchase between groups [F(4, 84) = 67.609, p < 0.001; M₁ = 1.41, SD = 0.51; M₂ = 2.29, SD = 0.69; M₃ = 3.30, SD = 0.73; M₄ = 3.94, SD = 0.90; M₅ = 5.11, SD = 0.76]. Counter to our expectation, not buying the calculator was viewed as more impulsive than either buying them only or wanting the portable music player. Because the script was described as planning to buy the calculator, some respondents appeared to view the change of plans as impulsive.

Results

Manipulation check

As expected, subjects in the high-power condition reported that their feelings were significantly more powerful (M = 5.20, SD = 1.04) than those in the low-power condition [M = 3.28, SD = 1.14, F(1, 106) = 84.53, p < 0.001], indicating a successful manipulation of power experience. Likewise, the results of manipulation check for product attribute priming were almost identical to the pretest study, indicating a successful manipulation of product attribute.

Purchase impulsiveness

The results of ANOVA analysis showed that the main effect of the experience of power on purchase impulsiveness was not significant [F(1, 104) = 0.235, p < 0.629]. The main effect of product attribute on purchase impulsiveness was also not significant [F(1, 104) = 0.390, p < 0.534]. But the interactions between power and product attribute were significant [F(1, 104) = 91.617, p < 0.001]. Further results revealed that subjects’ impulsiveness to purchase utilitarian music player was significantly higher (M = 4.07, SD = 0.83) than hedonic music player [M = 2.37, SD = 0.69, F(1, 104) = 40.028, p < 0.001] in the high-power condition. In the low-power condition, subjects’ impulsiveness to purchase hedonic music player was significantly higher (M = 4.19, SD = 0.92) than utilitarian music player [M = 2.48, SD = 1.19, F(1, 104) = 51.978, p < 0.001]. The statistical diagram is shown in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Results of study 1.

Discussion

Study 1 shed light on the impact of the experience of power on impulsiveness to purchase products different attributes. The results demonstrated that subjects with high-power experience preferred utilitarian product more significantly compared with hedonic choice. On the contrary, subjects with low-power experience preferred the product with hedonic attribute rather than utilitarian product, which provided support for H1 and H2. Because powerful consumers have a stronger mentality of utility, individuals’ intentions and behavior are more consistent with their values when they have greater power (Magee and Smith, 2013), and thus they prefer products that could bring them functional value (Magee and Galinsky, 2008). Therefore, powerful consumers are more likely to be attracted by the utilitarian attribute, which leads to a higher impulsive purchase intention for these products. On the contrary, powerless consumers rely on emotions to make decisions (Jin and Zhu, 2016),they get immediate gratification by buying hedonic products.

Study 2: Robustness of the impact of the experience of power on purchase impulsiveness

In study 1, we manipulated subjects’ power experience using the method of an episodic recall. In order to test the robustness of our findings in study 1, we conducted study 2 using an alternative measure of chronic power experience with a different stimulus material in a new context.